Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Paul Goodman: Gay Marriage Bill is a threat to religious freedom

In response to allegations that someone with 'strong social connections' to the Prime Minister (allegedly Lord Feldman) is of the opinion that Conservative Party members are 'mad, swivel-eyed loons', David Cameron has written to every party member assuring them that he thinks nothing of the sort. He said: "I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise."

The problem is that many members simply will not believe him, not least because 'swivel-eyed loon', if not quite an aphorism, is an innate Cameroon attitude. Ever since he became leader and sought to stamp his programme of modernisation upon the party, some of his allies have freely described members as ‘Turnip Taliban’, ‘dinosaurs’ and ‘backwoodsmen’. And they have done so with impunity. Lord Feldman's alleged views are therefore unsurprising: there is little to distinguish the prehistoric dinosaur attitude of the rumbling backwoodsman and grumbling Turnip Taliban from the madness of the swivel-eyed loon.

Cameron naturally denies that he is sneering at his party, but his actions belie his words. As the excellent Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome explains:

The Loongate row is still reverberating in the Party, especially at local Association level. The key point about it is that too many Conservatives, from the Cabinet table to the grassroots, believe that the controversial words are what is thought and said of them in Downing Street. No measure has done more to buttress that impression than the same-sex marriage bill - which has been imposed on the Party with such absolutism, and which is the cause of such a bitter culture war. Many older people especially see the measure as a deliberate assault on their values: the bill might thus almost have been designed as a recruiting-sergeant for UKIP. For this reason alone, Tory MPs should vote against the bill this evening in good heart. They will certainly grasp that Ministers haven't a clue what the courts will do when they get to work on Equality Act challenges, and that the bill is consequently a threat to religious freedom.

The vast majority of Conservative Party members - along with discerning Conservatives like Paul Goodman, Sir Gerald Howarth, Edward Leigh and David Burrowes - fully appreciate that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty: it is simply not possible to sustain two competing equalities; one must give way to the other.

Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP, has warned that gay marriage will lead to ‘state fascism’. Those who oppose will be cast as bigots, Nazis and
fascists ( or 'swivel-eyed loons') ranged against the moderate, enlightened and utterly reasonable
proponents. The consequences of
this Bill are being completely ignored:

“You are summoned to a tribunal where you cannot have a defense lawyer
and you cannot record the proceedings nor have a witness present. The
people judging and prosecuting you have no legal qualifications. The
accusation is ambiguous, having to do with ideas the state does not
like. The penalties could include fines equal to several thousands of
dollars, public recanting, and rehabilitation classes. You are a bishop.
This is not China. This is Canada. The offense: explaining why
homosexual relations are a sin.”

So began the address
of Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa, to St Thomas University
Law School just six months ago. He set out - calmly and rationally - 'the
alarming consequences of same-sex “marriage” from the Canadian
experience'.

The Archbishop was recounting the true experiences of Calgary Bishop
Fred Henry, who received complaints for preaching the Church’s
traditional and historic teachings on homosexuality. The complaint was
subsequently dropped by the plaintiff, who admitted that he only filed
it to get media attention.

How many Christians will be targeted and harassed by 'aggressive homosexuals' - the homosexualists - simply in order 'to get media
attention'? And don't think it's only the Christians: the crusading gays are ferociously unforgiving in condemnation of their
moderate dissenting co-sexualists (see here, here and here).To the rabid, intolerant homosexualist, a gay person who doesn't
support gay marriage is 'like the token Asian guy who wants to be in the
BNP'. Nice, huh?

We will doubtless be seeing an awful lot more of this: The Attorney General
Dominic Grieve has warned of the 'profound difficulties' ahead for those who dissent
from the state's redefinition of marriage. We will surely see Christian
ministers and schoolteachers dragged before commissions and
inquisitions, and they will be judged 'guilty' irrespective of the religious conscience. Their
crime will simply have been that of preaching a sermon or delivering a
lesson expressing some concern about the gay agenda or casting some
doubt upon the validity of gay marriage. But someone will complain about 'hurt feelings' (whether truly hurt or not), and these preachers and teachers will be arrested,
prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. The only means of avoiding this will be
self-censorship: the mere discussion of homosexuality will become
taboo.

Canada has gone before us. Archbishop Prendergast tells us that gay
marriage has resulted in the Bible being called 'hate literature'. Like
the Roman Catholic adoption agencies here, there is 'growing pressure
for the Church to comply or to be shut down'. Indeed, we've already
heard the threats - from a Cameroon Conservative MP.

Archbishop Prendergast enumerates the consequences of same-sex marriages as
including 'restrictions on freedoms; forced sex education; sexually
confused children; sexual experimentation among children; and muzzling
and debilitating the Church'.

“By reassigning financial benefits to same-sex marriage, what was once
an incentive to fruitful, traditional families has become an incentive
to sterile, destructive social arrangements,” he said.

But David Cameron will march on regardless, persuaded that
those who oppose him are the real swivel-eyed loons. He can deny it, but we know that he despises traditionalists. "If our Lord Jesus was around today," he preached back in 2010, "he
would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal
rights, and not judging people on their sexuality.’

This is his theology.

And when asked if he thought the right of gay children to
have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that
homosexuality is a sin, he answered: “Basically yes – that's the short answer to that."

This is his notion of religious liberty.

When the Prime Minister appropriates Jesus to his gay-marriage cause, the dissenting theologian is not merely a swivel-eyed loon: he is a heretic. Not since 1559 has there been an Act of Uniformity requiring everyone to
assent to a particular worldview, and it took more than 300 years to
eradicate that. But sexual orientation has acquired a quasi-religious status which trumps any
religious worldview that opposes it. It is secular pluralism by
statute law.

Paul Goodman accuses David Cameron of acting in an absolute fashion. Interestingly, back in 2008 the Archbishop of York wrote of New Labour:

"Our
current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an
abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the
excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on
diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal
conscience.”

Cameron once naïvely claimed to be the 'heir to Blair'. Certainly, on equality, they are peas in a pod. Cameroon Conservatives are a continuation of New Labour, which is why they turned to Labour yesterday to rescue this appalling Bill from recalcitrant Tory backbenchers. The Prime Minister has lost sight of the foundational
importance of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. He has forgotten that these hard-won liberties are crucial for the peace and
security of the realm. He has no understanding at all of what it means to be Conservative in the realm of religion. He has forgotten - if ever he knew - what it is to be conservative.

224 Comments:

One MP said it was difficult to see how Cameron could turn around his fortunes after a series of setbacks, not helped when he appointed two more Etonians to his inner circle. "What is Cameron going to do? Rescind the Etonian hirings, say I am not a snob? Of course not. This feels terminal. I can't predict how it will happen but it feels like we are nearing the end."

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if the legislation is passed, when the Gay Community come up against the Muslim Community (after all Islam is just as strident, if not more, that Christianity.

"The Prime Minister has lost sight of the foundational importance of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. He has forgotten that these hard-won liberties are crucial for the peace and security of the realm. He has no understanding at all of what it means to be Conservative in the realm of religion. He has forgotten - if ever he knew - what it is to be conservative."

Sorry to cut and paste so much of what you have just written YG. but it should be chiseled in stone.It is the very essence of conservatism.There must be a reform movement within the Conservative Party. It is ridiculous that members are defecting to UKIP when all that is really needed is a change in leadership and a well-articulated statement as to what we stand for.

By making the discussion of immigration taboo, the Establishment was able to pursue its policy of Third World immigration unhindered. Ironically, it is that same diversity that will squash underfoot the Establishment’s current pet projects of equality and gay marriage: come the Muslim majority, gay marriage will be binned and homosexuality criminalized.

Luckily, the horrendous damage the Conservative Party—that leading light of the Establishment—has done to this country is at last becoming clear even to its most die-hard supporters.

Same-Sex Marriage is part of a much wider phenomenon: the systematic de-Christianisation of Western culture for the alternative vision of a society perfected by human reason. (The last century gives some less-than-happy examples of how this Utopian dream worked out in practice.)

The established relgion in Britain is by now established in name only. If trends continue, Chrisitans will find themselves in a position analagous to the Jews in Babylon or the early Christians of the Roman Empire: under the control of an indifferent, intermittently-hostile pagan power.

If we treat 'Revelation' as indicative of the course of history, then all this should come as no surprise. There, evil is given its head before the return of Christ establishes the new world order.

Interpretations of the Millenium differ, but on one point they all agree: before things get better, they will get worse.

For those who preferr a non-biblical take on things, towards the end of 'I Claudius' Old King Log, surveying the frog pond, murmurs, "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." Given their freedom, they will bring their own consequences. It's much the same idea.

If not taking notice of people who want to infringe the freedom of others on their own religious grounds is to infringe on religious freedom then - as was the case in Sunday opening, sports events on Sunday, divorce when marriages break down......then let us have more of it.

I would argue, though, that as long as there remains the right of a person on religious grounds to not have an SSM imposed on them, and the right to argue against it on religious or other grounds remains - as it should - then religious freedom is not at threat.

The only difficulty I would see is when a registrar or similar takes exception to doing their job. Perhaps that could be solved by grandfathering in registrars who are in post but who conscientiously object, for after all they could not have anticipated being put in the position of not wanting to marry certain people - but not hiring any more people who would refuse to do their job as legally constituted.

Religious people are entitled to not eat pork, but not entitled to deprive those with no such objection of their bacon.

And in all this, the basic poverty of the arguments was never effectively pinned down and followed through in the Parliamentary debates.

The Anglican Church has woken up 40 years late and expected to be listened to. There are different levels to this, which its advice blurs into one. Christian marriage is between one man and one woman. But beneath that are basic biological concepts, and beside it are the other religions' views and historical context..

Marriage is an abstract noun for the social contract and commitment between a person with XY chromosomes and another with XX. That is, and will always be, different from a relationship between two people with the same chromosomes. Different in biology, outcome, physical & social interaction. We use a different noun to describe that relationship - the aggressive secularists don't like that.

Why?

What negative implications are there of the fact of difference? None unless you think that religion looks down on you. My MP (Tom Brake) wrote back to me repeating the allegation that the retention of the definition as it is implies inferiority of same-sex love.

Why? Inferiority and superiority is a religious implication on the fact - if a religion says that one is a sin, and the other isn't. He, being an avowed atheist, likes the Barry Morgan version of Christianity, so how mine stands up in court is anyone’s guess.

Therefore, as I told him, this law creates an anti-Christian (not neutral or secular) legal redefinition of a noun. No answer - just more flannel, and assurances that I needn't worry because religious people would be free to retain their beliefs, and that the Bill wouldn't cover religious marriage anyway, despite him wanting it to. He may not technically have lied, but what use is that to me? We can possibly narrow down the options to deceit or incompetence, but beyond that we cannot judge between the motives. Reading the Bill itself confirms my fears.

This is a total mess and it's totally unnecessary. Maybe someone can produce a simple flow chart or diagram on marriage that even an Etonian can understand.

I feel a bit like Fr John+ after the above expression of anger, but no MP, no journalist and none of the Twitterati have yet been able to persuade me that I'm a bigoted variety of the common loon. Julian Rivers view never seems surface either. http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=432

Never mind. I shall continue to obey the appointed authorities where I can, but I feel sorry for people whose livelihoods now lie in the path of my MP's ideology.

Your point is a good one. I would resent it if Islam took over and prevented me from drinking wine.

Jacques Derrida had the experience of going to school one day and being told, "Little friend, you cannot come here any more." Another teacher put it more brutally: "French culture is not for Jews!"

Under Nazi control, that had become French law in Algeria, and the teachers were only obeying it. Otherwise, they would have been breaking the law.

We might say it was a bad law, but the Nazis would have disagreed. What gives us the right to say they were wrong, unless there is some sort of moral authority that transcends both them and us? Otherwise, it's just players on a pitch without a referee: and the strongest, or the craftiest, wins.

I haven't expressed myself very well, but do you see the problem I'm getting at? It's like the question asked about Plato: "Who will guard the guardians?" You're assuming the new values are right. How do you know? And what if the guardians go wrong, but retain their power?

This isn't about eating bacon. It's about the place children occupy in society. You would legally abolish the connection between marriage and children. In so doing you destroy the expectation that adults have an obligation to form a stable lasting relationship into which children may be brought. You abolish the expectation that children deserve the care and attention of the two adults who conceive them. You abolish the necessary role of father and subsume it into the more generic (and very redundant) category of caregiver. I would add that you abolish the expectation that sex imposes obligations greater than the search for a more perfect orgasm, but that happened long ago.

What will happen is drearily predictable. Continued birth rates below replacement. Inevitable economic decline as too few children are available to enter the work force and two few of them are qualified to do high-value work. More illegitimacy. More children conceived in unstable transient relationships. More children ripped apart by the selfish desires of adults to please themselves at the expense of those for whom they are responsible. And how do will it be justified? "The kids will be fine." No, they won't. That's the problem. There is a reason that every successful civilization in the history of man has entrusted children to traditional marriage. It's the only thing that works.

These are the children you are expecting to carry the burden of a modern economy in an increasingly dangerous and competitive world. Who is going to instill in them the moral character and discipline to learn and focus and defer gratification? Who is going to carry prosperity forward against the exploding economic power of China and India? The daycare provider? Dad who left with his new girlfriend the other day? Mom's new live-in unemployed boyfriend? Their peers on the street?

Choices have consequences. Now, if I could isolate myself from the consequences of those bad decisions, then maybe I wouldn't care. But I can't. The consequence is going to end up standing on a street corner at the age of 16. With a knife. And an attitude. And a sense of entitlement that he is owed something.

"Religious people are entitled to not eat pork, but not entitled to deprive those with no such objection of their bacon." David B seems to conjure up a rather civilised, cozy, world of live-and-let-live, everyone allowing others to do things their way, as long as they themselves are not imposed upon. If only it were so! The problem is that many people, today, will not allow this - eg. homosexualists, Islamists, extremist environmentalists, and those who cry "Bigot!" "Racist!", etc. It's all about power, in the end.

He was one of only two children still living with their natural parents.

I remember saying to them that they seem OK happy etc. But he came back to me that once you scratch the surface a most of them as he called it, were "messed up in the head" and during the PHSE session at least were angry that their parents had separated etc.

My wife also goes to the primary school bus stop with our youngest. One of the "mums" is actually a guy. Sometimes he dresses as a man and sometimes as a girl. One day is called Mark and the next day Michelle-- I kid you not-- apparently my wife says he does the girl thing so well you can only tell by the really low voice -- I haven't seen him)

He is also married to a woman who always dresses and acts as a woman, but she goes to work and he stays at home. The kids of course call him Dad when he is a man but some pet name like Michelle when he is a woman.....!

My wife describes the kids (Two boys and a girl) as "completely off the wall"

Those kids that remain sane through all of this get placed in day orphanages, which the state encourages.

And the Archbishop of York was correct when he said that liberty was being sacrificed for an abused for of equality.

The truth is that where equality is pursued, it almost inevitably becomes the pursuit of equality of outcome, and when that happens, it almost always erodes freedom.

And such is the case today. The pursuit of equality, which advanced slowly but surely during the 20th century, has become a stampede since 1997, and nothing is allowed to stand in its way. It is the agenda of Blair, Brown, and Cameron. As a result, is now being slowly strangled.

And sadly, even now, very few people have woken up to see that freedom - not equality, not the economy, not immigration, not crime - is the key issue of our day.

Excellent post (and I salute the humility of mentioning 1559 - we've all got "form" when it comes to intolerance, the surprise it that homosexualists seriously think intolerance is the way forward).

Dave says,

And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise.

The trouble is, apart from what you have written here, now Jeremy Paxman has said he has used the term "swivel-eyed loons" to describe local party members. In other words, this wasn't a one off, it seems to be a common phrase. Anyway, Dave has long since used up all his credit when it comes to people believing what he says, so surely everyone is going to believe Paxman and the various others here, not Dave.

Is it me, or does it all feel like a Government coming to the end of its life - as when it has been in power for three terms or so?

The only thing, I suppose that is stopping Tory MPs unseating Cameron is that they realise that if they do the coalition will break up and the government will fall. So Cameron stays in power because he failed to win the election - priceless!

Excellent post Carl "The consequence is going to end up [neglected and abused children] standing on a street corners at the age of 16. With a knife. And an attitude" and hatred, anger and violent resentment towards adults. Phil, "Those kids that remain sane through all [parental sexual perversions and sexual selfishness] get placed in day orphanages, which the state encourages," euphemistically called 'child care' better called child neglect.

Where are the mothers when society says motherhood and the protection and status of marriage no longer matters or works ?

Altering marriage to encompass homosexuals and lesbians and rushing it through without discussing the wider ramifications and any proper consultations of the public of how society and the family unit should be ordered in light of scientific advances with relation to reproduction, stem cell cloning, sperm donors, IVF, only a single genetic parent, and any other challenges to the two parent family is foolhardy and downright ignorant and bloody selfish of the LGBT mob.

In the article by Elizabeth Marquardt for “Marriage Resources For Clergy” in conclusion she asks

“What might the future hold for children with three or more legal parents? We have no idea.”

It's mind boggling and needs a lot more time for discussion and research. How would children cope with the knowledge that they have originated from one genetic parent or two same sex genetic parents or three genetic parents? We already see children from single parent families do not fare as well as those in mother-father families let alone the Frankenstein element. I think it will destroy the soul and very being of a human being. When we look at how desperate people get to find their origins and connect emotionally to a male and a female and to belong and know their roots where they come from it's absurd not to slow down and discuss all this before changing the family structure.

The entertainment industry centered on Hollywood has helped reshape Americans’ views on sexuality, family and marriage. But this change results from Hollywood’s powerful homosexual culture, whose ideological leaders tolerate no dissent — even from other homosexuals — and who have filled a vacuum in the industry left by the absence of faithful Christians.

... More than 5,000 members of the rich and famous attended the Los Angeles GLAAD Media Awards in April, which honored President Bill Clinton with the Advocate for Change Award. However, GLAAD has made known that not all homosexuals in Hollywood are welcome, especially when they step out of line with GLAAD’s agenda.

Bret Easton Ellis, screenwriter and author of the book American Psycho, took to Twitter to claim that GLAAD had banned him from the awards ceremony over controversial tweets criticizing what he called the “politically correct gay agenda.”

GLAAD's vice president of communications, Rich Ferraro, told the Hollywood Reporter that GLAAD did not want Ellis and his tweets overshadowing an event “advocating for equality in the Boy Scouts, marriage and across the country.”

Surely Cameron Must go. He has gone to far in making a pact with the Labour Party to force this insane bill through, despite the dissent & opposition within his own party.This from a man who sold out to the Lib - Dems for a position of power.This from a man who firmly stated a few days ago "We don't do pacts" & not forgetting the pre election 'cast iron' promise of a referendum on EEC membership. To put it simply Mr Cameron is a liar whose word is untrustworthy. Who at times seem to be as power mad & insane in his actions as the Emperor Nero.The door is open sir at least leave with some dignity.

Lord Tebbit has lost patience with the man and Jeremy Paxman confirms he is a lier and a sneak. What astonishes me is that throughout his time as leader of the party, both before and after 2010, he has not had one policy, no not one except that is the sodomising of marriage. Evil or bizarre make your own choice.

You are hardly a liberal, so don't give us the tosh about religious freedoms and 'rushing things through'etc.

G-d knows I don't agree with SSM, but if I read another comment about gays= Nazi Germany I think I'll go and batter my head against the wailing wall!

If one wants to talk about religious freedom I think a couple of months ago you were arguing very strongly against Jewish male circumcision and Kosher food. I think you said these were barbaric and that Jews should 'fit in'(despite being a minority for 300 years) with British culture of eating bacon and 'humane' animal killing and for Jews not to circumcise males .

I just thought I'd play to the gallery here. Like make everyone feel comfortable about the 'fascist' regime we'll all be living under. I guess if I really were a fascist I'd have to hate myself, beat me up and send myself to the nearest Zyklon B chamber....

Newspapers that generally support the Tory party have never been wildly enthusiastic about David Cameron apparently but now, on the evidence of today's leading articles and commentaries, they appear wholly hostile.

The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph carry extremely critical editorials, as does The Sun and the Daily Express weighs in with a short rebuff. The Times, more liberal as always, advises the prime minister to show greater leadership.

To make matters worse for Cameron, there is yet more favourable press publicity for Ukip, this upstart party now apparently attracting support from disaffected Tories. The Telegraph also suggests that Cameron is responsible for "the latest poll putting Ukip just two percentage points behind them, the Tories at 24 % to UKIP's 22%."

And then there is The Sun. Its editorial, headlined "Cam's failures",which argues that the Tories' "dismal poll ratings and vicious Tory civil war" have been triggered by Cameron's "lily-livered leadership, casual arrogance and suicidal political instincts."

Sadly this may all be too late to save the morality, health and future wellbeing of this nation.

Iain Dale published Nigel Farage’s autobiography back in 2009. He says "Not a single bookshop chain would stock it. Booksellers have always been of a leftish persuasion and they proved impossible to shift. In late 2011, I published an updated version called Flying Free, which contained three added chapters, including the full story of his plan crash on election day. He had also regained the leadership of UKIP, but Waterstone’s still weren’t interested. However, out of the blue last week Waterstone’s have placed a large order and you should now find the book in most of their stores. Even they can now see very clearly which way the wind is blowing. I emailed Nigel to tell him the good news and he replied by saying: “Thank you for the good news. You are now represented by a UKIP councillor. Which indeed, I am."

Unfortunately I missed the party of the week, held in David Davis’s office. The bash was imaginatively titled “the Return of the Prodigal Daughter Party”, and it was to welcome Nadine Dorries back into the fold. Quite unbelievably, people in the Prime Ministers Office tried their best to ensure a non-attendance from the 2010 intake by making threats like “remember there’s a reshuffle coming up” and the like. They even called a meeting of backbenchers in Number 10 to try to scupper the attendance. well as we know from earlier posts it didn't work and the party was a great success and meeting of like minds. Time to stand up to bullies." Don't you think.

I don't think that anyone here actually thinks that we are headed for the 4th Reich.

Just that as in the 1930s in Germany and elsewhere, people were on the whole uneasy, but did not know why.

A monster was coming, some could see it, but they could not in their worst nightmares have imagined that it would be as bad as it would (very soon) become.

A direct comparison with Nazi Germany is I agree completely invalid.

However, an indirect comparison? We are definitely still in Wiemar times, but the Government (The whole lot of them)is looking increasingly weak, corrupt, ineffective and increasingly unable to deliver.

We shall see and it may be sooner than we think.

Of course we may be heading for a glorious future where low morals, promiscuity, selfishness, destruction of family and indebtedness lead us all on to new heights of personal satisfaction and happiness.

We will tear down Nelson perhaps and put a statue of Cameron and Thatchel in a sexy embrace as a token of our thankfulness for leading us out of darkness and into a glorious future together.

Article: "But sexual orientation has acquired a quasi-religious status which trumps any religious worldview that opposes it. It is secular pluralism by statute law."

People choose their religious worldview, or rather most of them are socialised into them by their parents, but many gay people have no choice in their sexual orientation at all. Also, why is religious belief so privileged? Why not (say) those of vegans with regard to how we treat animals?

That said, exual orientation shouldn't always trump religious belief, it should depend on the situation really. In the case of registrars in civil marriage, religious belief should get trumped although it would be reasonable to allow a transition period.

The Inspector re-iterates what he said at the weekend. The Gay uprising is all about the notion of ‘equality’ than of the actual institution of marriage. When feminists successfully broke the institution of men’s clubs, did the pioneers in a golf club, for example, play alongside the men afterwards. They did not. They formed women’s teams that excluded men, those that had any interest in the sport at all, that is.

The same thinking stands behind gay adoption.

The same thinking also applies to Tatchell’s campaign for CP for different sex couples. He won’t rest while there are CP and marriage for gay people and marriage only for everyone else. You see without it, gay people would still be unequal ! Bit of a choker that, what !

Will gay marriage be the end of it ? Certainly not. As gay men on Pink News continue to say, “I will not feel equal until I can walk down the street showing affection to my man and not get abused for it”. Well, fruit types, we all have our dreams, but sensible fellows have dreams that are actually feasible.

Oh, by the way, one’s last paragraph leads neatly onto the next gay agenda issue. And surprisingly, it’s not taking Sodom to schools, it’s about law. Stand by for the ‘hate law’ demands from them. Abusing a homosexual couple in the street will be a hate crime. And, chaps like Cranmer blogging that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle. That will be a hate crime too !

In a few years from now, the criminal law will consist of – misdemeanours, felonies, and hate crimes, in ascending order of severity. Of course, ALL victims of crime are to be pitied and the perpetrators punished. But if you are convicted of a hate crime, in a court, or worse, a kangaroo hearing – God help you then…

An amendment to the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill proposing to amend the Equality Act in order to provide legal protections for those who disagree with allowing same-sex couples to marry has been defeated in the House of Commons

Can anyone else see what is eventually going to happen to the church safeguards ?

Incidentally, in their comments section, it would be fair to say there’s a bender fest going on. One feels there is nothing now they cannot have if they just get round to demanding it. Our heads on this site, for example…

Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris has been evacuated at this present moment, after Dominique Venner, a famous French historian, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after writing a blog post slamming France’s recently passed equal marriage bill.

Dominique Venner, a famous French historian, wrote the post on his blog on 21 May, before committing suicide today by shooting himself dead, in the mouth, in front of Notre Dame Cathedral’s main altar as an act of public protest.

Oh! so now you're calling me a bigot well that's just so true to gay form isn't it. If you don't like what someone says silence them with the bigot label. Is it really freedom to hack bits of skin off baby boys without any anaesthetic or kill an animal inhumanely so that it suffers when we have developed less harmful slaughter methods.

I am not a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion at all. I just question Kosher killing and circumcision and feel they don't belong in this country in this century unless you're willing to modify them. I'm not going to get sidetracked now with the circumcision/Kosher debate.

I think, if you want to go down this route, that fascism is probably the wrong ideology to compare the current situation.

I think fascists would not like the idea of gay marriage. I think they were supporters of marriage and traditional men/women roles, providing of course that they were of pure Ayran blood etc. The lesser races (us Jews at the top) of humanity were either to be exterminated or put into work camps (homosexuals were put into camps as well).

So as much as I hate fascism, I think that a more appropriate comparison would be with Communism, which I think has a big thing about 'equality' although buggers up the attempts to produce that. Isn't there an old saying about all animals being equal,but some more than others? I think that pertained to Soviet Communism.

Perhaps rather than gaystapo, something more credible like Pink -Stasi or gayveism or bolshgayvism?

That is of course if you do accept the premise that this legislation will usher in a new dark age of [Christian] persecution. If so, welcome to the club...

But I think you are- if you are so into freedom of religion and freedom of speech then I guess that should apply to Judaism as much as Christianity?

It is OK for a Christian to rant against homosexuality/gay marriage on grounds of religious freedom, but that same religious freedom (as you've just confirmed) does not apply in respect to the Jewish religion...

Is there a connection between beautiful New England and entire American cities turned into smoking rubble? There is. Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a "sin" city (San Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it. Oddly it's been the place where America started that's wanted to be the first place to help bring about the end of America and its values! It's been a Nor'easter of Perversion (helping to fulfill the end time "days of Lot" predicted in Luke 17) that began in (you guessed it) Boston in 2004. New England has gone from the Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence, from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God's Future Shakening that will make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples by comparison! The same Nor'easter has been spreading south and as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride, Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land! The same Luke 17 prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities that God will flatten because of same-sexism - including American cities - a scenario I'll have to accept since I can't create my own universe and decree rules for it. I've just been analyzing the world's terminal "religion" that has its "god," its accessories, its "rites," and even a flag. It's an obsession that the infected converts are willing to live for, fight for - and even die for! Want more facts? Google "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up" and "Government-Approved Illegals."

Hannah and David, the Jewish people are God's chosen people, you are a blessing to us gentiles for which I constantly thank God. Yes the LORD wants to call you back to Israel, your promised land, which incidentally lies from the Nile to the Euphrates, but Israel's gain would be our loss. As you have rightly pointed out on previous posts the list of the Nobel Prize winners in itself is sufficient proof alone that God exists, as is the re-emergence of the state of Israel 65 years ago after 2,000 years.

Yes the British Nation has failed the Jewish people historically in York in the 11th century and more recently in the 20th century, for which we need to show great repentance and seek forgiveness, when

1 Churchill gave 78% of the land due for the Jewish people to create Jordan, a new state, in 1922.

2 The cold and heartless refusal of the British government to allow fleeing Jews to leave Europe and settle in Israel during the 1930's and

3 In colluding militarily with the Islamic arabs against the Jewish people throughout the 20th century.

However you are loved as a people by at least this contributor to His Grace's Blog.

The thing is Gays rights are associated with the State and can only be sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority.

Therefore the conscience of the majority needs to be subsumed to the will of the State.

Here we have the connection with the Nazis "everything in the state, nothing outside the state etc"

Clearly history has shown us that once the state enforces a law then the majority follow. (I have always been amazed that the average German soon got the idea that concentration camps were a good idea and some at least of the older generation still sees some merit in Hitler. )

Once conscience is completely subsumed to the state then we have a dangerous precedent. E.g. future governments might decide to.......

You are quite right and history tells us that it will all "settle down" and soon only a few will object and they can be dealt with by the state by fear of prosecution, financial ruin, public ridicule and censure, and the young will have forced "education" via schools with no option for parents to chose otherwise.

You may get your way and our conscience is bent to the will of the state, it has been done before. I ask though, at what cost to freedom?

No surprise there Naomi, but as I said, there's no law on Earth that can't be overturned. I suppose the sad thing is not just the vote, but that our nation has darkened its heart, thumbed its nose at its creator, and taken one step closer towards the moral abyss

" What gives us the right to say they were wrong, unless there is some sort of moral authority that transcends both them and us?"

If you are using the Bible as a moral authority I hope you hate your parents, have parties excluding all but the destitute, and never wear mixed fabrics etc. That is to say, the Bible is a lousy guide to morals.

" Otherwise, it's just players on a pitch without a referee: and the strongest, or the craftiest, wins."

Like the early Jews and the Amalekites?

Actually this problem is to a large degree overcome by considering morals as as an evolving part of the human extended phenotype, where there is a tendency towards good moral being maintained and bad ones discarded.

Hence there being generally less deaths in war, more personal freedom, less slavery and more help for the poor and sick now then there has been in earlier epochs of human existence.

If religiously motivated killings, misogeny, infringements of personal freedom, attacks on actually finding out and taking on board what can be known about life, the universe and everything and other iniquities associated with religion were to fade away then things would be better still, I'd have thought.

Phil: "The thing is Gays rights are associated with the State and can only be sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority. Therefore the conscience of the majority needs to be subsumed to the will of the State."

One could say something similar regarding civil rights for black people. Also, the polls are showing majority support here for same-sex marriage before the law has been passed. How do you square that one?

"Here we have the connection with the Nazis "everything in the state, nothing outside the state etc"

We have a connection there so tenuous it bordered on the absurd. Of course, the conscience of the majority is not subsumed to the state at all. We're a stable, well-established liberal democracy with a diverse population who rather likes its freedom. It's the churches which want to be the moral policemen for the rest of us whether we like it or not, and who want to impose its own particular version of morality on the rest of us en masse. And who elected the churches?

Without wanting for the sake of it to quell optimism, who in 1900 would have predicted that the next fifty years would yield two world wars, Stalin's purges, Hiroshima and The Holocaust?

I know a woman who was driving her kids to a party on a carefree day. Two yobs escaping the police came down the dual carriageway in the wrong direction... Her torso was smashed, and she's now in a wheelchair.

The Berlin Wall vanished almost overnight. Who can say, with confidence, what's round the corner, and what will have the strength to endure?

David, I was going to say that, given the phenomenon of Cultural Marxism, Communism was a better comparison than Fascism. You beat me to it.

I, for one, don't think that SSM, of itself, will usher in a dark age for Christians; but the iceberg of which SSM is merely the tip might well do so. (Note that I said 'might': in the light of what I've said immediately above, I would not wish to be thought guilty of confident predictions).

Phil: "You are quite right and history tells us that it will all "settle down" and soon only a few will object and they can be dealt with by the state by fear of prosecution, financial ruin, public ridicule and censure, and the young will have forced "education" via schools with no option for parents to chose otherwise."

Equally applicable to civil rights for black people. Lots of people predicting rivers of blood etc. Yet it settled down. For sure, there are tensions in inner cities but the core bits about rights are fine in polite society. As you suggest, saying in public that they should all "be sent back home" is likely to ruin one's reputation and the people inclined to do so tend to keep quiet. I don't advocate suppressing the speech of those who press on though as long as it's not in front of a crowd of people holding pitchforks.

Mr Venner placed a sealed letter on the altar of the cathedral before shooting himself. His choice of the altar being associated with religious marriage ceremonies, appears to be a symbolic gesture of protest against the law permitting civil gay marriages in France which took effect last weekend.

The "marriage for all" law in France has provoked a powerful movement of middle class, conservative, religious and right-wing protest in the last four months. Another large demonstration is planned in Paris on Sunday.

The leaders of the protest movement, including most but not all leading centre-right politicians, have all pilloried the law as politically-motivated attack on family and religious values and the imposition of a "new civilisation.

Danjo, well the way things are going I would probably get away with looting shops or punching someone in the face(look at what happens in the recent riots the police merely look on!)But if I spoke publicly against |'gays' well we all know that the full weight of the law would come down upon me.I don`t think you can call yourself a 'liberal' anymore without being a hypocrite?.

I think the civil rights for black people analogy does not work in two areas

1. Black people do not choose to be black.

2. Black and white people marry, they have families together so the absurdity of treating them different is self evident.

I could also add that the Bible is very clear on homosexuality being wrong but does not advocate treating different races differently, particularly if they are believers.

Its a gamble, maybe it will work out. Maybe resentment will grow. Difficult to predict. The world is now a different place to 1930s Germany, 1918 Russia or 18C France. What I am doing now is but one example. If things go wrong quite quickly dysfunctional children / families, economy down the tube, unemployment, weak and unpopular government.

As a believer, I do not get stressed about it. I am interested in what God does next. I just provide a bit of bread and fish.

Lovely story here. Muslims and the usual suspect Gays turned up for a demo. Regret unable to remember the issue. Hardly any of the gays had their rainbow badges or rainbow flags with them. You concentrate on defeating the Christians, lads, and the road to Gay nirvana is all yours

Phil: "I think the civil rights for black people analogy does not work in two areas"

It works fine for answering what I intended it for:

The thing is Gays rights are associated with the State and can only be sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority.

That is, the State pushed them onto the general public and there was clearly overt racism around at that time and a lot of opposition. It doesn't look so attractive written like that when it's black people rather than gay people, does it? Some people where on the right side of history back then though, as the saying goes.

"1. Black people do not choose to be black."

I didn't choose to be gay either. You have it from the horse's mouth too.

"2. Black and white people marry, they have families together so the absurdity of treating them different is self evident."

Is Len building himself up to calling me a queer or a bum bandit now? I ought to charge a small fee, to be donated to charity, to hang around and witness while various Christians indulge themselves with their inner demon as they work through their angst.

Your second paragraph. I was thinking in terms of Natural Law: much wider than the Bible. The fabrics issue relates to an eaarlier covenant, and has been superseded. Your other two examples involve the issue of metaphorr that even non-religious langauge cannot escape: eg a stone obeying the 'law' of gravity.

The Amalekite issue is, I agree very difficult. Suffice to say it was for a given context, is not ongoing, and nothing comparable occurs in the New Testament. Incidentally, have you read Flaubert's 'Salammbo'? Not the Amalekites, I know, but after a diet of crucified lions, mutilated elephants, tortured slaves and sacrificed babies one feels that Semitic culture in general had its shortcomings.

The evolving morals poinnt is parrticularly well made. Is evolution random or purposive? If it's purposive, what's driving it, other than survival?

Take 'The Descent of Man': the predicted extermination of lower races, and the unease about the perpetuation of the weak. Darwin posits 'evolved sympathy' to counter 'hard reason'. Enter Nietzsche. That's illogical: follow hard reason where it leads. Insofar as Hitler listened to Nietzsche, we know the result.

'The Black Book of Communism' estimates a death tally of eighty to one hundred million. Religion would have a struggle to match that, even in percentage terms. Lysenko's science wasn't driven by religion, either.

Socrates (detested by Nietzsche) also said we should follow truth where it leads: however unpalatable the conclusion. It's a principle I aspire to follow, and I do not find it inconsistent with being a Christian.

Your sentiments in your penultimate paragraph, incidentally, I find wholly admirable. There seems no disagreement about ends: only about means.

Hope to have the opportunity to discuss with you again. (But not tonight, or in the immediate future. Other pressing things I ought to be attending to right now).

oooooooooo thank you so muchly , I am so grateful that we have you stamp of approval.

"It's just a couple of your yucky practices are questionable that's all."

Yep... I think you'd be in agreement with David B and possibly Danjo then,bless 'em both (:.

But yucky? So a bit like the idea that a Jew who was cruxified 2,000 years ago can save you for eternal hell, which means Jews were 'god killers' until the 1960's.... or as yucky as thinking that when you take Holy Communion you are eating and drinking the body and blood of a (Jewish) man/god. Be it literal or symbolic.

Danjo. I spoke(somewhere) about the blurring of guidelines regarding morality.In some cases this 'blurring' is a deliberate policy in other ignorance of the repercussions involved.God has clearly defined what' sin' is and the power of sin especially the deceptive power of sin.What, then, are the boundaries and standards God has set for us that define sin? The most basic definition of sin is in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law...: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" . Here God defines a boundary for mankind. He says that sin is transgressing His holy, spiritual law (Romans 7:12-14 [12] Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Breaking that law—crossing that divine boundary, that limit God set for us—is sin.

Danjo, I realise that you do not recognise any of the above but your blindness renders you captive to the power of sin.

The Government may attempt to replace Gods Laws with their own laws but this does not nullify God`s Law. Sin remains sin (however dressed up)and there is a very real penalty ( of which everyone should be made aware)for transgressing God`s Law.

God has put physical and spiritual Laws in place which we can break but we pay the penalty for doing so...cause and effect.

It may be politically incorrect to speak the truth but as Orwell said"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

To illustrate what I think Len is saying: Imagine a speed limit before a bend in the road, of, say, 30 mph. You see that, and you should slow down. The rule has been made for a reason. Now, you could choose to break that limit, and take the bend at increasing speeds, 35, 40, 50mph even. But, you can be sure, that if you continue, then you will crash at some point.

Your Grace,Yvette Cooper said: "I have heard Conservative members talk about the anger in their constituencies. And I hope they will now be able to stop talking about the anger and start talking about the joy. Because this is about the joy that we can deliver to those that want to get married just as their parents did. Let's be loud and proud, let's start the singing. Let's celebrate, not discriminate. Let's put aside the anger and hear it for the joy."

How is it that whenever we hear a proponent of SSM their logic is inexplicable? Married like their parents? Their parents were a man and a woman.

Why I am so sorry about that. I thought the thrust of this thread was a desire to protect freedom of religious belief? So if I am not mistaken I can (or not) 'mock' the Christian faith then?

Or is your dedication to religious freedom confined to Roman Catholics only?

It seems that atheists and Christians are quite free to 'mock' the Jewish faith, but zero response from you.

And you call gays 'fascists'?

(not that it would matter to you if the UK were ever threatened by fascism again, as Ireland was too small, weak and insignificant to ever want to raise a hand against Hitler.

Which is why the Irish Prime Minister at the time sent his "condolences" of the death of the Austrian Painter and Chancellor of Germany 1933-1945, aka Hitler, which was a condolence about the man personally, with henchmen, responsible the death of 6,000,000 Jews and many other gays and JW's and Roman Catholics and Protestants and Socialists and slaves and any one else who didn't like what he said.

You see that is why you are quite right in comparing the current Same sex marriage issue with the atrocities of the third Reich.

Dominique Venner, the suicide, quotes the words of an Algerian blogger writing about gay marriage: ‘In any case, in fifteen years the Islamists will be in power in France and they will abolish this law.’

M Venner adds: ‘Not to make us feel good, I’m sure, but because it is contrary to shari’ah.’

The junior Cranmer site is alas a bit filled at present with mini Inspectors...

...like the ones who bleat about gays being jack booted fascists, say they are Roman Catholic, dismiss half of their faith as 'the how to be a Jew manual' and then make crude racist remarks about black people and whoever is deemed by said Inspector to have a low IQ.

I pray for the repose of the soul of Dominique Venner.An old man who should have died peacefully in his bed with his family around him. This is a terrible death and illustrates the enormous pain that French Catholics are suffering from the prevailing Satanic forces.

" I believe it necessary to sacrifice myself to break the lethargy which overwhelms us. I give myself to death finally to reawaken flaccid consciences. I rebel againstfate,against the poisons of the soul the desire of invasive individualswho are destroying our very identities and notably the family,the intimate foundation of our multimillenia civilisation."

—Last and crowning torture of all the tortures of that awful place is the eternity of hell. Eternity! O, dread and dire word. Eternity! What mind of man can understand it? And remember, it is an eternity of pain. Even though the pains of hell were not so terrible as they are, yet they would become infinite, as they are destined to last for ever. But while they are everlasting they are at the same time, as you know, intolerably intense, unbearably extensive. To bear even the sting of an insect for all eternity would be a dreadful torment. What must it be, then, to bear the manifold tortures of hell for ever? For ever! For all eternity! Not for a year or for an age but for ever. Try to imagine the awful meaning of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore. How fine are its tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains go to make up the small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad, extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness; and imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried away even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of ages before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense stretch of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have ended. At the end of all those billions and trillions of years eternity would have scarcely begun. And if that mountain rose again after it had been all carried away, and if the bird came again and carried it all away again grain by grain, and if it so rose and sank as many times as there are stars in the sky, atoms in the air, drops of water in the sea, leaves on the trees, feathers upon birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon animals, at the end of all those innumerable risings and sinkings of that immeasurably vast mountain not one single instant of eternity could be said to have ended; even then, at the end of such a period, after that eon of time the mere thought of which makes our very brain reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have begun.

Phil: "My current Church has around a 50% black congregation. I tell you that they absolutely refute (100% of them), that their struggle had/has any similarity with the gay issue."

Well, I expect we can argue about that too but I'm sticking with the issue of what you said back there and why it could apply just as well to civil rights for black people, or civil rights in general really. The point about rights like that is that they set out what people are due and protect those things. In some cases, they protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority and that's why I challenged your words.

Much more bold to speak the word without fear and in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Holding forth the word of life; rejoice in the Lord. beware of evil workers, worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. The enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved. Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things and the God of peace shall be with you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Give ear, O my people, to my law; incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.

We will not hide them from their children, telling to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.

For He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children; that the generation to come might know them, the children who would be born, that they may arise and declare them to their children, thatthey may set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments; and may not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart aright, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.

The unique relationship God has in families is for the purpose of showing the world who He is – faithful to a stubborn and rebellious people. Thus it is very important to remember and tell our children of what God has done in the past, today and in the future.

"lesbians because we are all 'bitchy', but I honestly do not think that I can 'choose' to be gay any more than I can 'choose' to be hetrosexual"

Wrong..Sorry..!

I can give you lots of links that you may not accept. but just take one that you might Peter Thatchel does not agree with the born gay = always gay mantra.

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/gay_gene/firstborn.htm

Also

In 1991, Bailey and Pillard claimed if one male identical twin was gay there was a 52% chance theother would be too, but later work showed it’s only about 11%. A 2006 study of two million Danes(1) states, ‘childhood family experiences are important determinants’ of the sex of the future spouse.

Many studies have shown that if a person has a homosexual experiences before the age of 15 then around 50% never go on to have another homosexual experience.

Many women have stated that they felt intense homosexual attractions in early teen, but very few of these by their 30s and 40s stated that they currently ever felt any homosexual attraction.

Finally, I related my experiences of working with a limited number of lesbians and all were over the age of 40 ( Is this a factor?). I am sure that you are the exception to the rule!

Why hasn't anyone in Britain in this debate come up with the Commonwealth healthcare statistics for those with a homosexual lifestyle?

A life style of smoking is penalized in all sorts of ways. But the medical statistics for homosexuals as a group, show that a homosexual lifestyle invites probably as many if not more physical and phychological problems than smoking.

It is a well kept secret that this is extremely costly to the national health system.

The rest of Britain pays for what was officially classified as vice for most of the history of these isles.

An excellent post, which identifies precisely what will happen now, and why, with evidence. Well done.

It has been centuries since religious persecution was state policy in this country. But back then, in the 1660's, the method was the same: find something the Christians *cannot* endure, make a law to introduce it and force it upon them, and then use the forces of the state to punish them when they fail to do so, while sneering about "law breakers".

Whoever thought, even 10 years ago, to see such evil days reintroduced in Britain?

So Yvette Cooper wants us all to stop feeling livid and cheer up now we have sodo-marriage. Obviously, nothing makes me jump up and down in ecstasy like having my civil liberties curtailed AND being charged £4 billion for it (amazing how Labour manage to Tax-And-Spend even when they aren't the Government)

Perhaps she thinks the state should also redefine happiness too?We could have a "Gayness Bill" where everyone can "hug a homosexual" and we can all go around waving rainbow flags

Not content with giving us pervo-marriage, now they want enforced happiness too

With respect, that wasn't my point at all. I wasn't asking why God allows suffering, which is a completely different thing. I was asking if confidence in the strength of human institutions is justified in the light of historical events.

Nietzsche? You seem to imply that to mention him denotes approval. On that basis, I would have to assume you approve of the Austrian painter. You take my point?

David,

Mutual, because I think the problems that you raise are real ones, and deeply felt.

But not here/now. Some future topic, I'm sure, will provide a basis for continuation.

The consequences of allowing the perversion of marriage bill to pass are grave, most significantly the effective abolition of real marriage in English law. Marriage will be redefined as a genderless institution. The link between marriage and child-rearing will be seriously eroded.

Significantly -

1 Greg Mulholland MP yesterday called upon Parliament to abolish marriage in English law and replace it with a vague and arbitrarily-invented ‘civil union’.

2 Charlotte Leslie MP defined marriage as ‘a social construct’, when in fact it is a building-block of society, and the common patrimony of humanity.

And

3 today, Kate Green, the Labour front-bencher, even questioned the existence of any fundamental English law of marriage".

Once parliamentarians decide to dismantle legal protections for the institution of marriage, then the welfare of children – the main reason for state recognition of marriage – will suffer. Statistics show that the family based on the marriage of one man and one woman is the most protective environment for children, both before and after birth. What a surprise !

It is revealing that neither Maria Miller, the minister in charge of the bill, nor Yvette Cooper, the Labour party spokesman, made one single mention of children in relation to marriage in last evening's debate.

The experience of other countries where marriage has been redefined shows that calling same-sex unions ‘marriage’ damages real marriage – leading fewer people to regard marriage as relevant to parenthood, and all that that entails for tomorrow’s children.

Evidence provided to the Commons bill committee showed that this had happened in other countries that have already implemented similar laws.

This evidence "What happens to marriage and families where the law recognises 'same-sex marriage'?" can be read in full at www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301

In the Bill to legalise perverted marriage's third reading last night more Tories opposed it than supported it, with about 136 voting against, including the Cabinet ministers Owen Paterson and David Jones. Now apparently Tory opponents are pinning their hopes on the Bill suffering a mauling in the House of Lords. “It is only half-time,” one said.

Up to 120 Conservative peers - including several former ministers from the Thatcher and Major governments - are preparing to rebel against the legislation. They will receive strong support from Church of England bishops, who strongly oppose the moves.

Sources in the Lords suggest that only 50 Tories are likely to back Mr Cameron's position, meaning that Conservative peers opposing his contentious plans by a margin of more than two to one. David Cameron will again be forced to rely on the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers to gain a majority for the plans.

The attempt to scupper the legislation will be led by the crossbencher Lord Dear, who is a former Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, and Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Lord Dear has said the Bill would have huge “unintended consequences”, requiring 4,000 amendments to existing legislation, and was strongly opposed by the public. “We're in a mess with it and haven't thought it through, we need to go back to the drawing-board,” he told the Independent.

Lord Dear insists that feelings are running so high among peers that there was a “strong possibility” that the measure would be defeated in its second reading vote on June 3. He says he will invoke a rarely used procedural device, tabling a “fatal motion” in an attempt to kill the Bill.

"Two Cabinet ministers, David Jones, the Welsh Secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, were among the 133 Conservative MPs who voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. They were joined by ten other ministers, including John Hayes, who is Mr Cameron's senior parliamentary adviser and a key figure linking the Prime Minister with backbench Tories." - Daily Telegraph

"I pray for the repose of the soul of Dominique Venner.An old man who should have died peacefully in his bed with his family around him. This is a terrible death and illustrates the enormous pain that French Catholics are suffering from the prevailing Satanic forces"

I'd be slightly careful about making him appear like some sort of Catholic martyr.

Apart from the fact that he has given the proponents of gay marriage a textbook example of a certifiable swivel-eyed loon, and that suicide is a mortal sin, was the guy not also a practicing pagan who blamed Christianitymfor many ills of Western society, and wanted Europe to get back to its pre-Christian roots...?

Also, the Church has taught since Roman times that actively seeking martyrdom as a publicity stunt is to commit the sin of pride, and I'm pretty sure that wandering into Notre Dame Cathedral and blowing one's brains all over the altar, shortly after sending a press release out, would count as that.

All in all, Cressida and Naomi, you're more likely to find DanJo waiting for you in the company of the Blessed Martyrs than you are this bloke.

Dominique Venner's is a great personal tradegy for his family but think it will have little significance in the campaign against shame-sex-marriage. Gestures like these are not turning points in a campaign.

It will be the living, with the Lord's help, who will preserve the true meaning of marrige.

"The general consensus among today's Jewish community seems to be that our energies can and must be used to stop the perpetuation of genocidal activity occurring throughout the world, to become agents for peace, and to dismiss any contemporary comparisons to the biblical paradigm. But clearly there are difficult texts and teaching that remain in our tradition that must be remembered and reckoned with"

Thanks for the link. I think that blog author did note that Matthew P did write :

‘At once must come the qualifications. I don’t think that everyone is alterable. I don’t think change is possible without shelving part of one’s nature. I think that it’s generally unwise to fight a strong orientation unless it would lead to hurt. And I absolutely don’t think that homosexuality can be “cured” in the sense of expelling some kind of disease from the system.’

I think said this before, but on my faith journey I did go to quite a evangelical anglican church for a while, I tried to be phased by the toronto movement aka :falling on the floor, speaking in tongues as they called it, but I did draw the line about them praying for me to be 'cured' of being homosexual...

I guess Inspector won't like me saying that as I'd be 'mocking' Christianity (quite how fact can be mocking). Still if that is what they want to do that was entirely up to them. It wasn't for me though.

I not sure what I can do to help you with the middle aged women issue...

Nigel Farage : I won't expel members who call gay sex 'disgusting'. He said he would not expel members for voicing old fashioned views about homosexuality including those who describe it as "disgusting".

How wonderful, as Paul Goodman writes, Dave Cameron can only be described as a recruiting sergeant for UKIP.

I don't know if Danjo will be there all by himself Darter Noster. Johnny come lately rainbow hue'd Catholics like yourself ,enemy of the Church who does not have even have the basic understanding of confession will probably have a special section for himself in hell.Venner's pride is not a patch on yours.It is not for you to say if he committed a mortal sin...I am surprised a liberal Catholic convert such as yourself has even heard of such quaint dogma.I do not recognise you as a Catholic let alone to be entrusted with anything that involves teaching the Catholic faith.It is a disgrace that the Church has become so diminished and desperate that it resorts to employing heretics such as yourself.I can only think you have managed to slip through without being discovered.

Ah Cressida, how it does me good to feel the lash of your keyboard once again :o)

I'll lay out some scenarios, Cressida; just bear with me for a second...

1) My position on sin and confession was hysterically misunderstood by your good self.

2) I and the University theology department I teach in are involved in a Satanic conspiracy with liberal elements in the Church to lead the faithful astray and usher in a new age of darkness.

3) Several of the leading theologians and church historians of this country, not to mention one of its leading research centres for Catholic theology, just failed to notice that my views on basic Catholic theology were wrong.

Now, having laid those out, would anyone care to explain to Cressida what Occam's Razor is...?

Darter: "I'm pretty sure that wandering into Notre Dame Cathedral and blowing one's brains all over the altar, shortly after sending a press release out, would count as that."

In front of lots of tourists too if what I read was true yesterday. How awful must that have been, randomly seeing someone take the back of their head off with a shotgun? That may put some of those people into therapy.

3.It is not difficult to say what is expected of you when you are being assessed.

4. You have tried to place me in a homophobic role in the past.It is not going to work. I have not mentioned Danjo or Hannah at all.I did not state that Venner was a matyr or a saint or even imply it.Your dishonesty and lies are truly appalling and verging on the psychopathic.

I think it was a pistol, which would have reduced the splatter somewhat - if he'd used a shotgun, they'd have been cleaning him off the buttresses.

Still, either way it's not what you want to see on your holiday snaps. Fortunately, unlike genuine Christian martyrs, we're unlikely to be seeing portraits of the magic moment in the centuries to come - except possibly in SSPX churches.

Phil: "The black rights is the same as gay analogy is insulting to every black person I have met. That is why I challenged you about using it."

Black rights are clearly not the same as gay rights. However, one can make analogies nonetheless. Whether black people are offended by that is neither here nor there if the analogies are true.

"It is analogy of convenience I can see that. However, the people concerned do not see the connection and feel very angry about you using it."

You keep stepping over the context I used it in, which is this:

The thing is Gays rights are associated with the State and can only be sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority. Therefore the conscience of the majority needs to be subsumed to the will of the State. Here we have the connection with the Nazis "everything in the state, nothing outside the state etc"

To which I replied "One could say something similar regarding civil rights for black people." I'll say it again in different words: civil rights for black people are associated with the state and were, on the face of it, only sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority. Yet no-one is leaping where you went with it that by overruling the will of the majority there was or is a connection with the Nazis. As with black civil rights, similarly with gay civil rights. Your argument snippet is emotive rubbish at the end of the day, isn't it?

Also, I notice that you also avoided the point that the majority will seems to favour same-sex marriage according the most recent poll that I looked at, and has been consistently more for it than against it.

3) So, I wait until the assessor has left the room then tell the students to screw their notes up do I?

4) I did not say you had mentioned either of them; I simply said that DanJ0 had borne his share of slings and arrows in the past.

I hate to break it to you Cressida, but I don't think it's me that comes across as the unhinged psychopath in all of this.

That is not least because, after all this vitriol, you and I profess (more or less) the same teaching, but because I put a different emphasis on it you have been jumping down my throat ever since. When will you figure out that nothing I have said, at all, departs from established Catholic teaching or could even be called a liberal interpretation of it?

In fact, Cressida, just for your benefit I shall reproduce the whole exchange.

I said:

"Brother Ivo,

Forgive a question from someone coming late to this discussion and not able to listen to the sermons at present, but...

I've tried to point out on this site before that sinfulness is a condition of humanity, and that we should behave towards fellow sinners with understanding and love. If that is what you are saying, I'd be with you.

But where exactly are you drawing the line when it comes to human behaviour? Jesus does approach sinners with compassion and love, but he is also abundantly clear that the pattern of the sinner's life needs amending - i.e. that certain behaviours engaged in by human beings are sinful, cause a breach with God, and will ultimately have consequences.

There is a worrying tendency in contemporary Christianity to use God's overwhelming love for his creation as a 'Get out of Gaol Free' card - God so loves us that anything we feel to be basically alright is not something we will need to atone for; as long as what we're doing does not directly cause physical or emotional harm to another, it's probably ok.

That is not Christianity; it is therapeutic deism, in which God only exists to rubber-stamp whatever our consciences feel is right at any given time. Jesus had an incredible love and compassion for all us sinners, but he did not shy away from pointing out that emendation of life was needed.

It seems to me that contemporary Western Christianity misses the fine line between compassion and love towards sinners (which we all are) and promoting the belief that virtually nothing is actually sinful.

Where do you stand?"

And in response, Dodo said:

"Darter Noster

Very well said @ 20:31!

It appears I may have misunderstood you during an earlier exchange and for that I apologise."

Do you get it Cressida? For the love of God, do you finally comprehend?

I seem to have stumbled upon a discussion about the morality of the suicide in Paris against the legalisation of SSM.

I am surprised that there should be any dispute. The man was a Catholic and the Church's teaching is that suicide is the ultimate act of egoism. That is why it is so popular with Islamists, whose god is the projection of their own hate and rage.

The Church teaches that our lives are not our own, to be disposed of like private property. This act appears to be the most vulgar kind of religiose sentimentality.

"paien pratiquant" means "practising pagan". I hate to break the bad news to some, but this nut-job was not a Christian. He was a get-back-to-pre-judaeo-christian-roots right-wing gun-toting fantasist.

The difference is asking for some one to pray for you and people taking it upon themselves to do so.

I did have a girlfriend at the time and it was strange that the christian students seemed so obsessed with whatever sexual activity we apparently got up to and how being gay was just the worst thing ever.

I note that no-one ever did the same with hetrosexual non-married relationships, of which I was certain a few we more than kissing cuddling, but apparently OK as it was leading to marriage anyway. But there you go. None of my business, it is the hypocrisy that made me want to gag.

Wouldn't you feel a bit uncomfortable if a member of your Church decided to pray for a blind person to be 'changed' to being able to see, without asking said person first if she'd want that prayer to be said?

Anyway no, I don't want to change my orientation. I wouldn't consider my sexual orientation per say to be wrong.

D NDodo did not change his views on confession .You backed down. He has not departed he has reinvented himself and still posting here.

A psychopath does not behave in an unhinged way. They are calculating measured and seem reasonable and always attempt to enlist support. Sounds like you eh!

I do not ever engage you because the encounter is too volatile.You initiated this. I oppose your luke warm Protestant style sugar coated Catholicism.I will never recognise it and thankfully there are still priests and Bishops who remember what Catholicism is supposed to be...not some Mickey Mouse/Blue Peter kiddy corner get together

I see no basis for any further communication between us as we are fundamentally opposed on the defining aspects of Catholicism

When the evidence finally comes to people's attention about the adverse effects of this legislation, particularly on children then I think you will find attitudes will change.

Already a child born in a "non traditional household", (that is that they are raised in a household that does not have two parents of opposite genders.) is almost 11 times more likely to suffer abuse, 6 times more likely to engage in early sexual activity, obtain 70% of the educational outcomes of their peers in traditional families.

Interestingly, the outcomes for girls in families without a father, seem to deviate the furthest from what would be expected. The most dangerous place for a child to grow up is by far in a family where the father is not the biological father of the children and is not married to the mother. (Almost 20 times more likely to suffer abuse)

The stats are coming in, E.g. Sweden and Canada are providing plenty of evidence that when marriage fails society is not far behind.

Of course this could be just the teething problems of your "brave new world", or are these the wrong words?

(The data excludes as far as possible, children brought up predominantly in care)

Phil

PS Strictly comparing homosexual "married" or civil partnership households is difficult. However, we do have some data on outcomes for children. The results so far are not encouraging, but the samples are very small, so here we will have to wait (about 10 years or so) and see.

However as I said above, other departures from traditional families have been pretty much a disaster for children's outcomes.

You remind me so much of Albert in your dishonest method of communication slipping and sliding ducking and weaving.twisting to suit an argument.

You have omitted relevant material..picking and choosing text to suit your argument.I will need to see all the text. I remember Dodo saying that you were not suited to becoming a deacon because of your arrogant cavalier disrespectful attitude.( Non verbatim just words to that effect) Dodo and I are very closely aligned in our religious convictions except for a few OT considerations.I am not shrieking I am speaking to you in a strong manner , a form of address that a milk and water Anglican such as yourself will be unfamiliar.I must go now...will point out your heretical statements later.

"Wouldn't you feel a bit uncomfortable if a member of your Church decided to pray for a blind person to be 'changed' to being able to see, without asking said person first if she'd want that prayer to be said? "

Jesus did not always ask first.

"hypocrisy that made me want to gag"

I feel the same especially when fat people especially talk about the sins of others and then then following comes to mind "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7.3

Their sin is obvious for the world to see but they cannot see it, most of our sins are hidden. We all want to find sins in others, that is why homosexuality is an easy target for heteros. A safe sin to condemn, as it is not one we want to commit!

For the record, I think that you are a fantastic person to be able to live your life and really put God first in your life, whilst being tested I assume every day.

Most of us on this blog think and say it is easy to do this. I have no illusions that it is really difficult and that most of us would fail in your situation.

Thanks Phil, I am touched by your deep concern for the children. Isn't it tragic that we have to wait 10 years and subject children to this a appalling 'experiment' to realise what every loving mother (are there any of us left anymore?) knows in her heart NO ONE can raise her child better than she can or love him or her more. Furthermore the mother needs the father to have made a life long commitment to her and the children and she needs to honour and respect his position.

Homosexual 'love' is fantasy land. When the government finally confirms that the money is all spent and there is nothing much left for pensions, health services, elderly care, education, welfare payments etc etc then we might find people have to turn back to their family, extended family for help and mutual support because the state won't be in a position to provide it.

Those who have fostered emotionally rich relationships with their family members will be in a much better stronger situation than those individuals who are socially and relationally disconnected.

"I remember Dodo saying that you were not suited to becoming a deacon because of your arrogant cavalier disrespectful attitude."

So in order to aspire to - note ASPIRE TO; as a married man I have at least 5 years to wait before I can even be considered - ministry in the Catholic Church, I have to pass you and Dodo first? Vocations Director, local priest, Bishop...? They know less about me than you and Dodo do they?

Who were you accusing of eye-watering, nauseating arrogance by the way?

I did not choose to be gay. Given that attitudes were rather harsher when I was growing up, why on earth would I have chosen to be gay? It simply doesn't make sense. Moreover, I recall in the past where your data and conclusions have come from in your comment to Hannah and it's basically religious propaganda.

"Black people are offended by the analogy you present that your struggle is the same."

I trashed your argument with my reference to black civil rights and what I did was completely valid unless you can say otherwise. You've had multiple opportunities so far and you've studiously stepped over them, preferring to try to shift everything to another argument for preferable to you. It hasn't gone unnoticed and I intend to point it out each time.

"Perhaps it is time for a different analogy, in which the people who's issue you actually refer to actually agree with you!"

Analogies are analogies if the relevant parts are actually analogous whether people like it or not.

It was a booklet from the notorious Family Research Council if I recall correctly. I've found one of their booklets online. Didn't I ask you whether you had actually seen or read the primary literature at one point and you hadn't, admitting you were just block quoting from their bumpf. If I recall correctly I followed some of the impressive-sounding references only to find that their quoting was disingenuous and highly selective, and the strength of their conclusions didn't follow.

hmmm DanJ0 on a victim spree. Black people are not recently freed slaves, that lad. They do have integrity, and most are well past that now. Interestingly, of all the races, they are the LEAST understanding of the homosexual condition, another victim indulgence. Of course, not that we get that from you, of course...

We're both Roman Catholics; I've never professed any understanding of homosexuality, sin, confession or any bloody-thing-else which is not in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church!!! Even Dodo finally figured that out!

For example, all I've ever tried to point out is that whilst homosexual practice is sinful according to the teaching of the Church, so are many other things that heterosexual people do all the time. We all sin, by our nature - this statement can be found in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, but when it comes from me Cressida doesn't like it...

Phil: "I also find it interesting that when challenged you get aggressive first then just restate you comment"

I'm not being aggressive at all. However, I will indeed restate my comment once more since you won't address it at all:

The thing is Gays rights are associated with the State and can only be sustained initially at least with the direct intervention of the state against the majority. Therefore the conscience of the majority needs to be subsumed to the will of the State. Here we have the connection with the Nazis "everything in the state, nothing outside the state etc"

To which I replied "One could say something similar regarding civil rights for black people."

That's true isn't it? Your argument there simply doesn't stack up. You agree right? Because if you don't then you might want to explain why because it's been challenged multiple times now and you've skipped it each time.

Phil: "Danjo I say it slowly the Black people don't agree with you. They should know after all. Race is not a choice, culture is, sexual orientation is."

Aside the irrelevance of the first sentence, it throws the rest of it into stark relief. You have had two gay people on this thread who have told you that they did not choose their sexual orientation and they should know, right? Only you've decided yourself that it's a choice, you're being heterosexual and all. That's in spite the sheer obviousness of it being a really strange choice for someone to make in the past when things weren't so tolerant regarding homosexuality.

The only people who could really claim that it is a choice - and then they would be acting under the assumption that other people are like themselves - are those who are attracted to both the same and the opposite sex.

Now it seems that some people are bisexual in inclination at least, to a greater or lesser degree.

But my own experience, and that of many people, including homosexual friends, with whom I have discussed this issue, is that many people are one or the other, choice not coming into it.

None of my homosexual friends have suggested that I might be hiding from myself or others any putative homosexual tendencies of my own, by the way.

@ Explorer. "a society based on human reason"...? Gays? What!!!What are you on, my friend?Every single thread here the same chap goes on saying that being black and queer are the same or comparable. He never fails to come up with that does he. Shame it's shit.

As you have not provided any other text apart from that which serves your argument I must rely on my memory.

You suggested that confession was of little significance by saying that people had no real intention of committing the same sin again and intimating the sacrament should not be taken too seriously. This is a commonly held view by Protestants and obviously some Catholic converts like yourself as well.

The fact that you hold this view contrary to Church dogma and particularly since you are in a entrusted position of teaching the Catholic faith makes you a heretic.I suppose you could split hairs and say that this was your privately held view and that you teach according to Church dogma.Even so I still do not think you would have much of a case. One wonders why you became a Catholic at all...employment opportunity perhaps?

Dodo and I have nothing to do with you becoming a Deacon obviously.We are still entitled to express an opinion as your unsuitability.Hopefully someone who decides these things will pick up on your unsuitablity as well. The Church has been far too liberal with their appointees and needs to be more vigilant in these matters.Cardinal O Brien being a good example.

As explained to me by an Anglican who is also a Catholic convert, Catholics are raised differently. He says Anglicans are not instilled with any real idea of truth.It is a concept that fluctuates according to the prevailing argument.Neither you nor Albert seem to be able to rid yourselves of this affliction and thus the reason it is impossible to engage either of you in intelligent and logical debate.

D.N. Your sad attempts at portraying yourself as some kind of sex symbol is just that... sad!And of course you will have no idea what i am talking about.

ALBERT

I am not the only person on this blog who has a problem with your dishonest communication.You threatened to sue someone because he accused you of being a liar. Of course as usual you will have no recollection of any of this and will require chapter and verse as proof.

I will try one more time then I will leave it as I just seem to get a broken record in reply

A few years ago I was diagnosed by my doctor as being overweight. My wife after having our 7th child was diagnosed as being to her horror, obese.

Both of us had sinned and had eaten too much and we did something about it. In my wife's case it involves strict diet and huge amounts of time at the Gym. According to your argument we could have said that we were not responsible for our weight problem, Believe me we have met many who say they have no control over their weight no matter what they do. (Yeah right!)

Phil

PS As the data on the Nazi occupation of Holland has shown, the majority of people do under severe state rule accept the rule of the state.

I have posted them before In Nazi Holland roughly 5% were collaborators, 90% were either too scared and/or accepted the Nazi rule and got on with their lives as normal. However, just 5% supported the resistance.

I said that, human nature being what it is, lots of heterosexual Catholics go to confession in the knowledge that, whatever their feelings might be at that moment, they will committ the much the same sins again at some point in the future, and their priest knows it too. That is not a theological statement; it's just a fact.

I also said, as one God, miscellaneous prophets, countless saints and pretty much every Catholic theologian from St. Paul and St. Augustine via Aquinas down to Ratzinger and beyond has said, that sin is not just a shopping list of actions to be avoided, so that like the boastful Pharisee we can say "I have not done X so I have not sinned" but a state of mind and part of humanity's fallen nature.

You can cry 'heretic' at me all you like, Cressida, but it doesn't make me one. As someone intending to marry, moving to a Church in which pretty much every opportunity for paid employment requires a vow of celibacy would be pretty counter-productive, would it not...?

Off you toddleCressida - ask your ex Anglican friend about that little conundrum, and see what he says...

DavidB says " You don't like SSM, then don't marry someone of the same sex'"

Ok, then why not the following?

You don't like drugs, then don't take anyYou don't like theft, then don't stealYou don't like cheating in exams, then don't cheatYou don't like drink driving, then take a taxiYou don't like murder, then don't kill anyone.

Neither you nor Albert seem to be able to rid yourselves of this affliction

It seems clear to me from what you have written to me and to Darter Noster, that while you have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, you seem at least in serious danger of violating the following commandment:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

As it stands, you have accused DN of heresy, and yet, he is plainly not a heretic, as he is not saying what you are saying he is saying.

I am amazed that anyone would think my opinions fluctuate according to the nature of the argument. I am a down the line Magisterial Catholic. If you can show me where my belief differ from the Magisterium's teaching, I will change my mind!

It is certainly true that some Anglican converts never quite get the idea of the fixed teaching of the Church. That may be the case with your convert friend. But you cannot infer that that is the case of all of us. Do you judge that to be true of Blessed John Henry Newman - how then is he beatified? Or what about Cardinal Manning? Or converts like Bishop Alan Hopes or Aidan Nichols? In my experience, converts are more orthodox than cradle Catholics because it makes no sense to convert unless you are going to submit to the teaching authority.

I am not the only person on this blog who has a problem with your dishonest communication.

Such accusations abound on the internet, they are not evidence. Look at the things people call each other here. Do you seriously think all those accusations are true?

When people have made that accusation again me, I have asked for evidence. On only one occasion has anyone ever provided evidence, but on that occasion I was simply mistaken. It was evident I was not being deliberately misleading, as was evident from the caveat I had written that I had not read the entire discussion.

You threatened to sue someone because he accused you of being a liar. Of course as usual you will have no recollection of any of this and will require chapter and verse as proof.

When someone makes an accusation of that nature, it is entirely right to ask for evidence. How else can anyone defend themselves except by knowing the nature of the accusation? You would rely on this principle as much as anyone.

I do remember referring to suing, but I cannot find the thread. I think I said "I wonder if I could sue for that." That is quite different, and is clearly tongue in cheek - after all, who would I sue? It's anonymous down here!

While I was searching for the thread where I mentioned suing, I found this from you:

It shames me that Albert rushed to his defence along with all the others who signed a petition supporting Cardinal O Brien

I don't think I did that, but perhaps you can show me where. All I did was argue about whether evidence was sufficient, at that time to "convict" against O'Brien - I certianly wouldn't defend him now. His is exactly the sort of behaviour the Church needs to purge itself of. But of course, that comment counts against at least some of his accusers, as they were carrying on these relationships.

But prior to the evidence being available, one should be cautious. It's called being innocent until proven guilty - it's part of the same principle of requiring evidence when an accusation is produced. I don't see any of this as controversial in a just society.

In my discussions with Albert I sometimes think him wrong, but I have never for a moment considered him to be untruthful.

On the contrary, I have found him to be among the more courteous and sincere Christians who regularly post on this blog, and one who gives much thought on to how to integrate scientific fact and logic into his belief system.

Sometimes, to my mind, that leads to him arguing on the basis of false premises, but never have I held his sincerity and honesty in doubt.

I mentioned earlier on this post that with the passing of this perversion of marriage bill, which is highly likely to happen now, the Glory has gone out of this Nation, indeed it has God has removed our protection and unleashed the gods of war ...

Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Thank you David, that is extremely kind of you to say - similarly, it has never occurred to me that you are dishonest or rude. I think we can all often misunderstand each other down here and sometimes we don't express ourselves well, and sometimes we learn as the discussion goes along. What makes someone dishonest though is not the truth of falsity of our statements, but our intention to mislead. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear, by defining lies in the words of St Augustine:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."

Albert you have chosen to take Darter Noster's word against mine which does not make it the truth. He has not even provided me with the relevant post or given me a date or (month) so that I can research the post myself.I am working from memory here. As you know people can delete posts as well.So they mauy not even exist any more.

I do not mind that you take his word or suggest I am a liar since I have no respect for you or your opinions at all.You are not very bright and and in fact quite illogical which does not help matters.

I have never specifically said you tamper with Catholic dogma. As far as I remember you do not. You are dishonest in the way you communicate The Inspector (even though I disagree strongly with almost everything he says) does not do this and neither does Dodo. You are what is known as 'slippery'chracter.You never let truth get in the way of your attempt to win an argument. You have been called a liar on here before.You threatened to sue Danjo because he called you a liar. The next time it happens I will draw your attention to it because you are so practised in the art of deception I do not think you realise it yourself .

The accusation of heresy is yours. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with you. You have provided no evidence, but DN has provided an explanation of his position with is perfectly orthodox.

I do not mind that you take his word or suggest I am a liar

Look back at my post, I and I explicitly said you weren't a liar.

Is this the nub of the problem - you don't read posts carefully? That would explain why you are accusing Darter Noster of heresy. The only evidence I have seen (and you have produced none despite the accusation being yours) is that he has made a nuanced and entirely orthodox comment about the nature of intention in the confessional.

As for me, you have not provided examples of me telling lies and the quotation from the catechism, that you need to know my intention as well as my mistake, before making the accusation should stand as a warning. Neither can you hide behind accusations of being "slippery" for, as your own latest post shows (which flatly accuses me of saying what I have neither said but have explicitly denied), you do not adequately read what people write.

He says Anglicans are not instilled with any real idea of truth.It is a concept that fluctuates according to the prevailing argument.Neither you nor Albert seem to be able to rid yourselves of this affliction

but now you've written

I have never specifically said you tamper with Catholic dogma. As far as I remember you do not.

There seems a paradox here (though perhaps not quite a contradiction because you have included the bit about "specifically" in the latter). I wonder if this is the kind of thing you refer to as being "slippery"?

Albert this is an example of you being devious and slippery again.It is all that nit picking and splitting hairs that you carry on with to twist text to suit your argument.You do this a lot of the time.Look, I suppose there is a possibility that you could be completely thick...but no, I suspect you are just being deliberately devious. This is the end of my posting on this thread.

Phil: "I will try one more time then I will leave it as I just seem to get a broken record in reply"

Well, there's no point flogging a dead horse and the horse, in the form of your argument I italised, is demonstrably well and truly dead. No wonder you left it for the knackers yard. But hey.

"According to your argument we could have said that we were not responsible for our weight problem, Believe me we have met many who say they have no control over their weight no matter what they do. (Yeah right!)"

Phil, I recall being aware of my own sexual orientation aged about 9 or 10 and that's not unusual. To take your analogy and run with it, I most certainly wasn't over-eating or learning bad habits at that point. In fact, I was in my very late teens before I even ate my first banana split. I haven't learned this thing you think is sinning by losing control over a normal appetite or not doing enough exercise.

Aside from the contextual irony of your now telling a couple of homosexuals, who really ought to know themselves and who ought to be offended by your attempt to define what they are, what we actually have here with you is someone who has started with a religious premise and, when presented with reality, has tried to change reality to suit his beliefs rather than change his beliefs to suit reality.

Going back to that religious propaganda you quoted, what we know from the twin study is that homosexual orientation for some of that cohort was not solely caused by a specific set of genes. What we don't know is how a homosexual orientation is caused, or indeed how many vectors might lead to an orientation like that.

Some homosexual men appear to be quite effeminate beyond affectation whereas lots of others, including me, are not. Who knows whether that indicates at least two different vectors? Even with the twin study, we know that the genetic code is to all intents and purposes the same for each twin but there are individual instances of differences and one can't necessarily assume that the in utero experience is exactly the same for each twin.

There have also been suggestions that epigenetics might have some effect on the development of the brain with regard to sexual orientation such that people are born gay but without there being a set of 'gay genes' to cause it. We simply don't know. But you for religious reasons want it to be a choice so that it becomes a moral issue and perhaps so that it could in theory be 'fixed'. Well hard luck as we stand at the moment.

As for this other thing that is running alongside here, I remain of the opinion that there was intention to misrepresent in order to cause a fight in both instances for what it's worth. Moreover, I think the threat to sue was not tongue-in-cheek at all, it was to my mind an instance of verbal violence given the other 'fear of the being sued' theme that seems to have been carried along. Context is everything in all of that.

This is very interesting. I have been brought into this discussion by you accusing me of dishonesty - even though I was no part of the discussion. You did so because you wanted to accuse Darter Noster of heresy (at least, I think that's what was going on). Despite every opportunity given to you by either of us, you have not substantiated either accusation, but on the contrary, have changed the subject etc. You have even accused me of saying things which any reader can see I did not say and plainly and clearly said the opposite. And yet it is me who is devious and slippery. Interesting company you are keeping BTW.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)